It May be Beautiful... but is it Sublime?

Anouilh

There is a Flickr group called "Beautiful is Boring".

The new aesthetic seems to be, thanks to digital manipulation, based on the production of perfect images of a seemingly perfect world. Hyper realism is much discussed in photographic writing and everybody is wondering where it will lead.

Sometimes I just go looking for grainy analog photos, preferably in B&W, to balance this out.

http://www.kelake.org/archive/art/the-aesthetic-hypothesis-clive-bell.php

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas has nosed his thesis (on this very subject unless I'm mistaken) around so often that I actually want to read it now.

Something that i'm curious about with respect to this is how much of this aesthetic is merely a backlash against the preponderance of digital.

I switched back to film originally simply because I didn't like the quality of digital shots. That was wayyyyy back in 2000 (!!!) though. If that was all i was worried about i should have bought a modern nikon body at any point over the last year or two. Is there an unacknowledged snobby element to my thinking ?

One thing i think i have encountered personally over the last while is the contrast between my own photography, and those billions of baby pictures that have by now completely dominated my stream. With the exception of the B&W ones, those baby shots are the times i've found myself wishing for a D700 ...

elven

I think there's a common path taken by a lot of amateur photographers where they strive for that better-than-reality-perfection, but then when you start being able to produce something like it, it becomes a bit hollow and empty. I'll try not to make comparisons to vapid supermodels. Oops, I just did. Aaaanyway, when you realise that all there is in that perfection is exactly what you see, maybe you go looking for something more, something depper, and something that isn't evident on simply seeing, when you have to look into it more and put a bit of yourself into it to find the magic. That's where the imperfection - maybe the word 'character' works here - comes in.

I still lament the digitalness of my shots when i try to push them and get that horrible criss cross tartan digital noise. I think we're seeing an end to that though, with lovely big sensors and crazy high iso like on the 5d.

DaireQuinlan

elven wrote: »

I still lament the digitalness of my shots when i try to push them and get that horrible criss cross tartan digital noise. I think we're seeing an end to that though, with lovely big sensors and crazy high iso like on the 5d.

This occurred to me when I was writing the above as well. Technically speaking if you start off with a completely perfect (digital) shot then you can do whatever you want with it in post*. Starting off with a distressed negative or blurry pola means that thats the extent of it. So this brings up another question. Whether that PROCESS thats resulted in the less than perfect shot (ie, I shoot a shot on B&W pushed about 4 stops and then stand developed in Rodinal for 2 hours) is as important as the end result, given that you could take a similar digital shot and come up with the same results. Purists would probably argue that the process and the intent behind the process are as important is the resultant shot. Digital shooters would probably eschew this. Maybe both camps are right. I don't know, but my sympathies are probably with the purists.


*with exceptions of course, lens related effects and polarisation spring to mind

Phototoxin

This leaves me in 3 minds; [leaving my other 2 to plot the overthrow of the WOOOORRRLD!]

1) I think that excessive photoshoppage is a bit naff. Maybe that the whole 'ohhh you *could* do it on film if you wanted/had time/money/chemicals/skillz' argument is a bit stupid as now we all have the time (increased clockspeed) money (photoshop is torrentable) chemcials (the software) skillz (online tutorials) so there could be an over saturation. We now know that people can photoshop a picture and make it appear wonderful and mental and brilliant. But it EVERYONE does it then it looses its appeal. I say excessive as sometimes you have to take the snap or loose the shot and had no time to wait for the clouds to be right so its not as contrasted as it should be. Ramp up contrast in photoshop. But it kind of blurs the line between a photograph and art. However digital cameras are still young (yes really!) which leads me on to point 2 -

2)it feeds film elitism - I think in a way this stems from envy {from which side is for you to decide} but in another regard I agree. My best B&W pics were on B&W and B&W C41 film - my digi cam tends to have more soft tones of grey. (sort of neopan 100-ish) whereas I want contrast which means that I *have* to photoshop. At the minute it leaves people wondering what is a photo and when it becomes digital image. A film camera bypasses these and you **know** that the end result, no matter how good or bad it looks, is a legitimate photograph and no one can argue about how much photoshop you've applied.

3) I dont really give too much of a flying finnegan about art, aestethics or whatever. I enjoy taking pictures of things and experimenting, for I am a scientist who happens to have photography as a hobby and not an artist. My formal photograpy training consited of strictly non artistic stuff, focusing on getting a correct exposure.
Sometimes when I see a 'good' picture of mine I can see in retrospect what 'rules' it follows and how that 'makes' it good. But is like kids doing science in school. Telling them that the acid reacts with the alkalai and makes salt and water is pointless. They done care. They want the fun stuff which is in mixing the two and watching the litmus change over and back until its neutralised.And then retrospectively looking at it and seeing 'ooh its changed colour!' In the real world of science this method of experimention would be prohibitively expensive hence most experiments must be planned a lot in advance with probable outcomes assessed.

Thankfully with digital the expense is negliable but the fun is still there. Its not very professional but then again I didn't realise I was getting paid. I think a lot of people want to appear 'pro'-esque. I encountered that at the Youth Media Days in Brussles where about 1/2 of the fellow photographers weren't too friendly and were attempting to appear all serious. No disrespect to their skill however the other less cliquey group were equally as skilled and realsitically would get further in the world of photojournalism due to their people skills!

AnCatDubh

elven wrote: »

I think there's a common path taken by a lot of amateur photographers where they strive for that better-than-reality-perfection, but then when you start being able to produce something like it, it becomes a bit hollow and empty. I'll try not to make comparisons to vapid supermodels. Oops, I just did. Aaaanyway, when you realise that all there is in that perfection is exactly what you see, maybe you go looking for something more, something depper, and something that isn't evident on simply seeing, when you have to look into it more and put a bit of yourself into it to find the magic. That's where the imperfection - maybe the word 'character' works here - comes in.

I still lament the digitalness of my shots when i try to push them and get that horrible criss cross tartan digital noise. I think we're seeing an end to that though, with lovely big sensors and crazy high iso like on the 5d.

I recently posted on one of the threads that I felt you get to a stage where to advance further you actually need to regress except now your regression is part of your skills and capabilities????

Perhaps?

Phototoxin

I guess when you're skilled you can look at something and then you know what you want the end result to look like. I wish I were more like that sometimes I take a picture and cannot capture/process it how I want
and its irritating but over photoshopping doesnt solve it.

Anouilh

Phototoxin wrote: »

This leaves me in 3 minds; [leaving my other 2 to plot the overthrow of the WOOOORRRLD!]

1) I think that excessive ... I think a lot of people want to appear 'pro'-esque. I encountered that at the Youth Media Days in Brussles where about 1/2 of the fellow photographers weren't too friendly and were attempting to appear all serious. No disrespect to their skill however the other less cliquey group were equally as skilled and realsitically would get further in the world of photojournalism due to their people skills!

I think that you have to choose the moment when to approach a photographer when he of she is at work. I stopped to chat with a photographer on the street some time back and, while he was friendly, I didn't linger as he was very involved in what he was doing.

Anouilh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I recently posted on one of the threads that I felt you get to a stage where to advance further you actually need to regress except now your regression is part of your skills and capabilities????

Perhaps?

Regression in art was very fashionable in the 'Sixties.
Nowadays I think the technical advances in photography clamour for finely-honed, hdr images which seem perfect and of another world. They are often far removed from the visual vocabulary of everyday life and seem to take on a life of their own.

I avoid looking at the new screens that are taking over public spaces because they seem to lure the viewer in to the neglect of the "real" world around.

Photographers owe it to themselves to become as conscious as possible of what their images are saying to viewers, especially when they upload to the Internet.

Point and shoot photos are often treated as if they have no context or meaning, when, in fact, they are some of the most interesting work many photographers produce. Looking at these snaps and finding why they might have attracted the photographer is one way of communicating with another person in a non-verbal way.

Having spent last evening reading Barthes and finding more references to Proust and photography, it seems that we could open up many discussions here that have not been touched on yet.

Why, for instance, has photography taken such a long time to become established as a valid art form?

Can anybody now become an artist thanks to photographic technology?

What draws many viewers to some photos when others get ignored?

What are the storage systems that will allow future generations to find the work we are doing now?

http://books.google.ie/books?id=AdUjbi3gAcwC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=camera+obscura+proust&source=bl&ots=PIdkWOyIY9&sig=ky_nN46C1-ZpTrXHM8Wst57C9mU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

ThOnda

Going back to the topic of this thread, I think that the essay is well written. If the picture attract not only eye, but your brain will come up wit associations, I can proudly say that the picture is not only "nice".

Disclaimer - if I have left a comment on your photographs "nice", it means that it is attractive to my mind. I don't comment just nice pictures.


Well, me selfish, egocentric, uneducated and personal point of view on the above mentioned questions is:

Anouilh wrote: »

Why, for instance, has photography taken such a long time to become established as a valid art form?

Because it was easier to produce (you did not work on the picture for many hours or days, therefore it cannot be art in comparison to statue or painting), photography captures immediately a picture of reality (no imagination, personal influence or personal impression). It was refused, because photography was understood more technical knowledge than visual art.

Anouilh wrote: »

Can anybody now become an artist thanks to photographic technology?

Yes. Why not? What is art? It does not matter where do you get inspiration or what technology you use to produce piece of art.

Anouilh wrote: »

What draws many viewers to some photos when others get ignored?

Punctum. A product could be called art when it attracts your mind to it, not just eyes. And if it is capable of attracting more people, it only shows that the qualities and information in the picture are common (=attractive) to more people.

Fajitas!

Argh! I tried not to reply. If you're just interested in the pretty pictures and newest camera, I'd advise not bothering reading

Photography as a technology has evolved a hell of a lot in a considerably short space of time - I mean, 150 years, give or take a decade or three. Essentially, the evolution of the photograph/camera as technology has been aimed at perfection, how to achieve the best emulsion, how to get the sharpest picture, how to get the best sensor, how to meter for the perfect exposure. The appeal to the mass of photographers, is essentially the idea of perfection. As with a lot of mediums, these ideas get oversaturated, one asks themselves how come they are no longer happy with that perfect landscape, that perfect flower macro, and where they can go from there.

This is pretty much where the appeal towards the sublime comes in, I mean, who cares if it's a beautiful landscape, I want a good photograph, something to interest me, make me ask questions, regardless of any idea of beauty.

Something that i'm curious about with respect to this is how much of this aesthetic is merely a backlash against the preponderance of digital.

If it is a backlash or retaliation, it's a completely valid backlash or retaliation, I mean, if the texture of film is more appealing to you, or you feel your photographs capture what you want them to capture better on film, then you're on the right track!

Aaaanyway, when you realise that all there is in that perfection is exactly what you see, maybe you go looking for something more, something depper, and something that isn't evident on simply seeing, when you have to look into it more and put a bit of yourself into it to find the magic. That's where the imperfection - maybe the word 'character' works here - comes in.

Bam, hit the nail on the head.

Perfection is so much easier to achieve with modern technology, it lacks that magic, there's so much more 'interesting' in an imperfect photograph - It's got that magic, the human element. It's not perfect, often far from it, but who cares about perfect when you've a much more interesting photograph - I mean, at it's most basic level, rather than stating "oh, that photograph is pin sharp and perfectly exposed", you're asking yourself why's and what's - You have to investigate the photograph.

This occurred to me when I was writing the above as well. Technically speaking if you start off with a completely perfect (digital) shot then you can do whatever you want with it in post. Starting off with a distressed negative or blurry pola means that thats the extent of it. So this brings up another question. Whether that PROCESS thats resulted in the less than perfect shot (ie, I shoot a shot on B&W pushed about 4 stops and then stand developed in Rodinal for 2 hours) is as important as the end result, given that you could take a similar digital shot and come up with the same results. Purists would probably argue that the process and the intent behind the process are as important is the resultant shot. Digital shooters would probably eschew this. Maybe both camps are right. I don't know, but my sympathies are probably with the purists.

But that process is so important to the aura of a photograph, while it's not directly relevant to this era of photography, Walter Benjamin's essay The Work of Art in the Age Of Mechanical Reproduction (From 1935) deals with this head on, in a roundabout way (Ha! D'oh!). Benjamin's essay specifically deals with photography being able to reproduce art on a mass scale, often for commercial purposes. The essay dedicates a lot to the effect of this mass reproduction on the aura of the art, ie, that soul that accompanies the original, essentially saying that the more an artwork is reproduced and circulated, the more it takes from the aura of the original.

We can look at this in modern terms, in regards to the process - I mean, if you have to develop your film, have that interaction with your developing and printing, it creates a sense of aura/ownership around it. You can hold that negative in front of you and see the silver emulsion, the image it's formed, whatever.

If you take a photograph on your brand new 5D MkII, import to photoshop, and add your 35mm sprockets to the image and print it out, it's never the same. It doesn't have that aura - The same for a Polaroid - pop a shot on an SX-70. It's not just a photograph, it's a 3D object called a Polaroid, you can drop whatever borders you want onto an image in photoshop, print it out, and it'll never be polaroid, just replicating one - It's lost that aura.

Obviously, photography (in regards to digital) will create it's own aura over time, as photography had to, along with the moving image, but I'm talking about here and now

I recently posted on one of the threads that I felt you get to a stage where to advance further you actually need to regress except now your regression is part of your skills and capabilities????

Absolutely. That regression is essential in progression, part of it realising what skills matter to you progressing, and giving up other skills which you don't need. Whether that means reverting back to your most basic of skills, then so be it - Even if it is just pointing and shooting!*

Having spent last evening reading Barthes and finding more references to Proust and photography, it seems that we could open up many discussions here that have not been touched on yet.

Why, for instance, has photography taken such a long time to become established as a valid art form?

Barthes is an interesting chap. I have to say, I can't stand his writings, but he has indeed come up with (or at least the phrasings for) several very important theories in photography, dealing with the conceptual end of it all. There are hundreds of discussions that can be raised from these theories. Have you read John Berger's Way's of Seeing? It's pretty simply written, especially in comparison to Barthes and Sontag's writings, but it's equally as interesting, especially if you want to begin reading photographs.

I don't think photography's nessicarily taken that long to become accepted as an artform, considering it's not that old when you compare it to painting, sculpture and print making. It still is a new technology, and as such, quite unstable in the way it will develop. That said, I think film photography is stereotypically (Right or wrong, that's your opinion) more accepted in the art world due to it's age or stability.

Can anybody now become an artist thanks to photographic technology?

Yes and no. Access to the photograph has never been easier, but there's a big difference between a photographer who merely takes photographs, to an artist using photography as their chosen medium. Art is no longer about 'just' the aesthetic, it's moved on to conceptualism - The why's of why it was made are far more important than the 'ooh, that's pretty' side of things.

An artist (At least, not a commercial artist) needs to be able to back up what they are do, being well read is essential, as is being able to discuss what your work can mean. What it's implications are, and so on.




*I'm currently shooting a Vivitar focus free point and shoot from the 80's with a panoramic crop. It's rockin'.

Anouilh

ThOnda wrote: »

Punctum. A product could be called art when it attracts your mind to it, not just eyes. And if it is capable of attracting more people, it only shows that the qualities and information in the picture are common (=attractive) to more people.

If you read Burke, the question of the sublime as well as the beautiful in art cannot be ignored. It is what causes a "frisson" of recognition and is not always pleasurable. In fact, much of the Romantic art of the 19th century played on this, as Gothic themes and images flooded galleries and publications..

I now wonder what you mean by the "mind".

A response to any image can be conscious, unconscious, subliminal.

Let's think about this more...

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Argh! I tried not to reply. If you're just interested in the pretty pictures and newest camera, I'd advise not bothering reading

The appeal to the mass of photographers, is essentially the idea of perfection. As with a lot of mediums, these ideas get oversaturated, one asks themselves how come they are no longer happy with that perfect landscape, that perfect flower macro, and where they can go from there.

This is pretty much where the appeal towards the sublime comes in, I mean, who cares if it's a beautiful landscape, I want a good photograph, something to interest me, make me ask questions, regardless of any idea of beauty.[/SIZE]

I think we need to look more closely at what, traditionally, the "sublime" in art has come to mean:

http://www.bartleby.com/24/2/403.html

I don't think it's merely the novelty and facility of photography that caused resistance to it's finding a place in the arts. The "eternal" quality of any work of art, how it weathers the passing of time is essential to its importance. Théophile Gautier has a great poem on the subject.

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

I don't think it's merely the novelty and facility of photography that caused resistance to it's finding a place in the arts. The "eternal" quality of any work of art, how it weathers the passing of time is essential to its importance. Théophile Gautier has a great poem on the subject.

Read Benjamin's essays

They're incredibly informative as regards the aura of art, and how it's passing of time works to add to this aura.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Read Benjamin's essays

They're incredibly informative as regards the aura of art, and how it's passing of time works to add to this aura.

Thank's. I'll earmark it for next Friday night, which seems to be a relaxing time to choose for studying aesthetics.

Also, there's the great opportunity to chat on Saturday mornings, when everybody seems to have a bit more time.

I studied Aristotle in relation to literature and his ideas are never far away.

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

Thank's. I'll earmark it for next Friday night, which seems to be a relaxing time to choose for studying aesthetics.

Also, there's the great opportunity to chat on Saturday mornings, when everybody seems to have a bit more time.

The joys of if being miserable outside and warm in bed'll do that. :pac:

ThOnda

I hate chatting on Saturday mornings, because it leads only to another visit to Amazon book shop...

I am kidding. Eventually something interesting happened here. And thank you all for supplying me with information about literature, I have purely technical and practical education only.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

The joys of if being miserable outside and warm in bed'll do that. :pac:

I think I'll hang out here

http://www.flickr.com/groups/indoorphotography/

until the weather improves

Fajitas!

I'll be heading in to my third home 'til the weather improves.

Phototoxin

If you read Burke, the question of the sublime as well as the beautiful in art cannot be ignored. It is what causes a "frisson" of recognition and is not always pleasurable. In fact, much of the Romantic art of the 19th century played on this, as Gothic themes and images flooded galleries and publications..

I now wonder what you mean by the "mind".

A response to any image can be conscious, unconscious, subliminal.

Let's think about this more...

my left handed scientific brain does not understand this

Some things are interesting, some are beautiful. Its all a bit subjective really.

ThOnda

Phototoxin wrote: »

my left handed scientific brain does not understand this

Some things are interesting, some are beautiful. Its all a bit subjective really.

Exactly! I have only technical education so I do understand the confusion. And that is the reason why I am trying to read a little and to discuss my confusement with people more educated in that field.

Some pictures are beautiful. For me it means that they please my eye - the associations in my brain are purely positive. But only pleasing. (Ansel Adams in most cases.)
Some pictures contain interesting subject. The brain triggers the whole waterfall of associations and I have tendency to study the subject, but not exactly the photograph itself. (women cars)
And some pictures are interesting. The brain kicks in, all the information stored in it starts to create fantastic road maps and I find myself captivated by the picture. Of course, I will study the details in the picture, but the picture, as a piece of art for my brain, is one unique object of my interest. And that is what I mean that picture attract my mind.

Anouilh

Thank you for such interesting answers.

The question of objective criticism of works of art, including photographs, is always there.

Subjective reactions are what make for popularity.

True value is difficult to pin down in times when subjectivity is the basis for assessment.

I have difficulties with "objectivity" as a concept and find the writings of philosophers helpful when thinking about art.
Burke, with his lively metaphors, is a delightful guide through the questions that many people ask when faced with a landscape in reality or with a work of art.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/romantic/topic_1/burke.htm

Also, there are many traces of his work in Proust.
The question of what it is to be an artist is so central to "La Recherche" that I keep going back to it , for its descriptions of landscapes as well as for the almost photographic character studies it contains.

I hope that this thread runs for some time, as the reading we find along the way helps refine our thoughts... which should improve our photography.

Many thanks to HughC for the paper on Barthes.
It would be interesting to see why his theoretical analysis of photography evokes such strong feelings in readers, some for, many against.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Read Benjamin's essays

They're incredibly informative as regards the aura of art, and how it's passing of time works to add to this aura.

Thank you. I've started and find that Atget is much analysed by Benjamin and his interpretors.
The ease of reproduction of images, at which Atget excelled, has been seen as the beginning of the death of the aura in photography.

Perhaps the expression "Whatever is rare is beautiful" fits the bill here?

This is also useful. Barthes coined many words and new concepts that can be confusing, to say the least:

http://www.radford.edu/jolanta/publications/Barthes1995.htm

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Read Benjamin's essays

They're incredibly informative as regards the aura of art, and how it's passing of time works to add to this aura.

Perhaps this could be a thread for sharing good links to essays on aesthetics and the philosophy of art?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

ThOnda

Brilliant! Thank you for finding it.
What about putting it all in the thread "Recommended Literature"?

Anouilh

ThOnda wrote: »

Brilliant! Thank you for finding it.
What about putting it all in the thread "Recommended Literature"?

The various ideas for bringing themes together in Sticky threads are useful. Perhaps reading lists could be offered under titles like "Depth of Field", "Landscape Photography", "Portraiture", so that we don't have to rummage in months-old threads to find links that are useful?